Vaccines

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by lewis82, Jan 2, 2012.

  1. lewis82 macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #1
    Continuing discussion from this thread.

    I don't get what would be dangerous with vaccines.

    Back in 2009 (was the H1N1 flu in 2009? Anyways, that year), there were mass vaccination campaigns in Canada. Some of the people complained because their arm hurt due to the adjuvant in the vaccine. Some people believed it could cause auto-immune reactions but we haven't heard of it in the media. I can't tell if it was that bad, as in my school I have been given the adjuvant-free version meant for pregnant women for some reason.

    What I do know is that we have eradicated polio, an illness which left my godmother with a crooked leg. She has always had a limp, but it has gotten much worse over the year due to her knee deteriorating. She has been forced to stop working because of this. It wouldn't have happened if the vaccine had been available at the time.

    Smallpox and rinderpest have been eradicated, poliomyelitis and dracunculiasis are on the way to be (with about a thousand cases per year worldwide) and many others are disappearing on a regional scale. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases]

    As with autism claims, no study backs this.
     
  2. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #2
    It's easy for the conspiracy theorists to reject vaccines, living as they do in a country with a low number of communicable diseases (brought about by widespread vaccination, of course) - since for them they perceive no threat from disease.

    I grew up in tropical Africa... and as a child walking through streets lined with beggars disfigured by leprosy, polio and other diseases I was under no illusions about the value of vaccinations. Weekly I'd read in the newspaper about whole villages wiped out by cholera outbreaks - and the six monthly vaccinations I received were vital in a country where the food and water supply couldn't be guaranteed to be cholera free. I also took anti malaria medication weekly... but that still didn't stop me from contracting it and almost dying.

    Perhaps they nay-sayers who cling to their 'robust constitution and natural ability to fight disease' might be a little less sceptical if they actually understood the mechanisms behind simple immunology. The vaccine is there to boost your own immune system... no more, no less. Read up on the history of Jenner, for goodness sake!
     
  3. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #3
    I am really surprised one of our esteemed republican candidates has not spoken about banning them. lots of conservative homeschooling christians that won't vaccinate.
     
  4. benhollberg macrumors 68020

    benhollberg

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    #4
    I believe that there are vaccines for many diseases, maybe even cancer, but since companies can make so much money on repeated treatments they don't release vaccines. Think about it, people will keep coming back for treatments and the money will get paid. If there a vaccine then a pharmaceutical company will be able to sell it for lots of money but it'll only be bought once instead of multiple times.
     
  5. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #5
    What diseases do you suspect this to be the case for?

    I think your assumptions are wrong.
    - We have vaccines already. Why were they created, if vaccinating isn't cost effective?
    - Vaccinations are big business, and guarantee continuing sales for a long period of time. To eradicate a disease could require hundreds of millions of doses. Sounds like good business to me.
    - Pharma companies compete. If your competitor has a patent on the medicine used to treat disease X, then you loose nothing by creating a vaccine to prevent it... and as a bonus you destroy your competitor's market.

    And there are vaccines that prevent cancer. Read up on HPV and cervical cancer.
     
  6. thatoneguy82 macrumors 68000

    thatoneguy82

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    Beach Cities, CA
    #6
    I'm fully vaccinated with almost every vaccine out there. I work in an infectious outpatient clinic and see multiple HIV positive patients who also have other infectious diseases. Unfortunately, some vaccinations for these patients are not viable because of their immune system is compromised. The vaccines that has a live virus would react differently. This is only of course they weren't vaccinated before seroconverting to HIV.

    Vaccination is important. I have nieces and nephew and we are entire medical company that work for HMOs (boo). It's necessary to ensure that your child grows up with nice and strong immune system. And of course, you can still forgo vaccinations but you're pretty sending your child to war without an armor or gun. Vaccines only affect the immune system cells and not neurons. It's completely improbable that it will have any effect on childhood development.
     
  7. GfPQqmcRKUvP, Jan 2, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2012

    GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #7
    It's a shame you had to bring politics into this thread. The anti-vaccination movement is not a republican one, sorry. There isn't much data available on which parties anti-vaccination parents vote for, but you might be surprised at the results. The data we do have points in the other direction but is not conclusive.

    Let's keep it on topic.

    The worst part is that forgoing vaccinations can cause unvaccinated babies who are too young for certain vaccinations to catch what is an entirely preventable disease from an unvaccinated child, often resulting in severe sickness or death for the baby.
     
  8. Cave Man, Jan 2, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2012

    Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #8
    They won't claim they're useless because they are most useful and effective; a vaccine that hadn't passed efficacy testing would never have made it to market. There are no long-term side effects. Can you give one example of such? If long-term (or rare) adverse events occur, they'll show up because of post-license monitoring (i.e., Brighton Collaboration). This is exactly how the first rotavirus vaccine was pulled from the market - an extremely rare adverse event was detected in post-license safety monitoring. The reformulated rotavirus vaccine does not have such adverse events.

    No, the public health community is responsible for this. Companies cannot manufacture them without first getting through clinical trials that are independently evaluated and approved by the FDA.

    This is BS. I am in vaccine R&D. Some of them work, but most of them don't and those never get out of R&D. I get no funding from private companies, only from public sources (principally NIH). And before you spout how I'm "corrupted by the grant system" I do other things, including the study of pathogenesis. I have no need for the vaccine work - I just happen to find it worth some of my time since it's the most cost-effective means of public health.

    In addition, vaccines tend to be the lowest profit margin products manufactured by pharmaceutical companies. That's one of the reasons why so few of them are still making vaccines. Physicians who recommend them do so because they are part of the CDC's list of recommended vaccines.

    BS. Your family member doesn't know what she's talking about. Vaccine recommendations come from the CDC, not pharmaceutical companies.

    This simply isn't true. The great majority of vaccine candidates fail to get through phase III trials and are therefore never presented to the FDA for approval.

    You have to be joking. Smallpox was killing millions each year for centuries until the early 1960s, then it went to zero deaths in the mid-1970s. This was because of the global smallpox initiative. Polio is now virtually non-existant in the world while before it was disabling and killing tens of thousands of children each year in the US alone. Juvenile hepatitis B cases dropped 90% within 10 years after mandatory hep B immunization for infants and children. Measles was killing more than 700,000 people (mostly children) globally each year as recently as 2001. The global measles vaccination campaign has brought that number down to just over 100,000 deaths per year today, and that number will continue to decline. The list goes on and on.

    Do you know anything about immunopathology? That's how many of these microbes kill - they elicit a pathogenic immune response that kills the patient (such as the 1918-1919 Spanish avian flu pandemic). Even with other agents the immune response may save the patient 999 times out of a 1,000, but with a vaccine program that number will drop to 999,999 out of a million (or more). It's all about probabilities.

    Well, this explains a lot.

    That's because those of us who vaccinate our children have kept the incidence of most of these microbes so low that you're unlikely to contract them. In other words, social parasitism on your (and your parents') part.

    Yes, you accept 1 death in a 1,000 for a vaccine preventable disease. Fortunately, you're in the minority.
     
  9. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #9
    Has nobody here ever received a vaccine ?

    Wow. When I was growing up in the 50's everybody got vaccinated for all kinds of stuff. Then when I joined the Navy THEY vaccinated me for all kinds of stuff.
     
  10. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #10
    Wow, caveman dominated the guy he quoted so hard he deleted his post. *Applause*
     
  11. praetorx, Jan 2, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2012

    praetorx macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    #11
    Of course not, they have to create a demand first then efficacy comes along with the profits. Pharmaceutical companies are in business to make money and they certainly won't care if you're daughter or sun dies or gets seriously injured by side effects. Worst case they'd care if their profits would hurt.


    Please do some research on who on puppeteers the FDA. Take that for "independent" evaluation. You can use this link for a good read: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fda2.html#FDA vaccine committee essentially run by the vaccine industry:

    Nevertheless this is a multi-billion dollar industry. It's enough when demand for one is high, profits sky-rocket. Once again the media does a very good job for creating scares and demand.

    So few? Let me enumerate some for you: Pfizer, Novartis, Merck & Co., GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Baxter, RotaShield International
    I'm sure you're aware these are not your Wallgreens corner shops but big corporations.
    Vaccines are anything but profit margins for pharmaceutical companies when they get subsidized by governments around the world (and paid out of our tax dollars)

    Also, according to the "Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA)" of 1992 which you can read on fda.gov, I quote:

    "The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was enacted in 1992 and renewed in 1997 (PDUFA II), 2002 (PDUFA III), and 2007 (PDUFA IV). It authorizes FDA to collect fees from companies that produce certain human drug and biological products. Since the passage of PDUFA, user fees have played an important role in expediting the drug approval process."

    In other words this is nothing more than the "tax" pharmaceutical companies pay to approving body to OK a drug or vaccine. And you still believe in your dream that vaccines and drugs are sold for our well being.



    Of course recommendations come from CDC but it only appears all are inseparable entities when they're not (read the article in the link posted above)
    Without CDC's recommendations and FDA's approvals pharmaceutical companies would have a hard time putting vaccines onto the market. CDC is just the salesman, FDA the regulatory body and the pharma. the end beneficiary.

    I'm sorry to pop your colorful soap-baloon.

    This is a nice advert that looks great for propaganda. I'm sure in time of "crisis" works great as scare tactics to promote a new vaccine.

    I don't have to be an expert in immunopathology to trust my immune system. It does a very good job providing I'm caring for it. Garbage in, garbage out exactly as a computer system. No wonder people are getting sicker nowadays but people carry on with their lifestyle entrusting their health to synthetical cures. (Anyone care for a burger with fries after getting a jab? </sarcasm>

    I grew up in a country where unlike yours vaccines were not mandatory and quite costly for the majority to embrace so giving credit to people like you for my good health is out of the question and not applicable in my case.

    As for the derogatory comments you used to describe my person I feel sorry for you.
    I'm worried about my kids and the world they'll have to live in because people like you that will do whatever it takes to defend their status quo, even put them at gunpoint for non-compliance.

    I hope you're just a foot soldier sent in a desperate attempt to shut me up and no one important.


    That's why it's called herd mentality and yes congratulations, you're the majority.

    ----------

    Sorry to disappoint, I didn't delete my post and certainly it's not my job to monitor these forums.
     
  12. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #12

    Dude I just spent 5 days in the hospital for orbital cellulitis . This happened because I have a weakened immune system. I almost lost my eye and had it spread to my brain I wouldn't be typing this right now. I sincerely hope it doesn't happen to you because you won't have a chance..

    Good luck.
     
  13. praetorx macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    #13
    I'm really sorry to hear that.
     
  14. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #14
    Vaccinations should be compulsory for children. If parents are too ignorant and uneducated to understand the overwhelming scientific consensus is that vaccines are safe then I don't think the child should suffer. Looking after a child's health and safety should be priority one for a parent, any case of a parent having to be forced to vaccinate should be noted by social services.
     
  15. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #15
    Which country?
     
  16. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #16
    You would be absolutely correct: we do have vaccines for many, many diseases including at least one cancer. However, I'm assuming you meant to imply that scientists have already created effective vaccines against many more diseases, but are not available to the public.

    But what's your evidence for this?

    And more importantly, how would this evidence be different if you were mistaken, and there weren't such vaccines hidden away in big-pharma's coffers? I'm guessing it would look exactly the same: either way, we'd live in a world where no such vaccines were available, with no evidence of their existence.

    So rather than interpreting the evidence at face value (that no such vaccines exist), you instead (it appears to me, please correct me if I'm wrong) have interpreted a lack of sound evidence supporting your theory as proof that you are correct.

    Why do we have vaccines for polio, then? Hepatitis? Diphtheria? Pertussis? Small Pox? Even HPV (which is essentially a vaccine against cancer).

    All of these diseases are terribly costly to treat, yet pharmaceutical companies decided to sell the vaccine anyway.

    If we already have vaccines that prevent terribly expensive diseases (like cervical cancer), why do you suspect that the same companies are withholding vaccines to prevent similar diseases?

    Conversely, many in the anti-vaccine movement make the exact opposite claim: that vaccines are so profitable it has led pharmaceutical companies to mislead the public about the safety of vaccines. Kind of ironic.
     
  17. Cave Man, Jan 3, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2012

    Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #17
    You're just making **** up, now.

    Aren't all companies in business to make money? Surely, you're not proposing that governments get in the business of making vaccines?

    Again, you're full of it. Here's one recent example in which a cell culture-based influenza vaccine was rejected by an FDA panel because of safety concerns.

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/URItheFlu/17128

    Ah, the whale.to site. John's had a burr up his back side for a couple of decades now. He's the Chief Disinformation Officer of Public Health. Self-appointed, too. How about instead of reading some mental guy's web site you read the primary scientific literature. You know, all that hypothesis testing stuff?

    Again, you're wrong. Companies make vaccines when there's profit to be made. That is almost always because there are a sufficient number of cases or a history of a sufficient number of cases. Once the agent is eradicated, the vaccine goes away. Just like the smallpox vaccination program. Once polio is gone that vaccine will be done, too. Then measles. It's simply market economics.

    And to show that you're wrong, there are plenty of serious infectious diseases that don't have vaccines made by industry because they are so rare; unless they are declared "orphan diseases" by the US government. The production of those is subsidized by the US government since it is highly unlikely the companies would profit, otherwise (small market demand).

    You obviously don't know the history of the vaccine industry. You should investigate how many companies made vaccines from the 1950s to 1970s. The industry is much smaller today, largely because of litigation. It almost disappeared in the 1980s, but fortunately, Congress gave them protection from frivolous lawsuits. Otherwise, they would have stopped making vaccines (as any exposed and responsible company would) because the profit margins are so small with vaccines. The result of that would have been a public health catastrophe - rampant cases of pertussis, measles, rubella. Lots of disease, death and a substantial hit to our economy.

    Without vaccines, thousands of children would die each year in the USA alone, and many, many more globally. The average life expectancy would be in the 40s, not the 70s or 80s. There would be billions of dollars spent each year on medical care.

    But your supposition that the companies always get their products approved is flat wrong, as I pointed out in one example above. You don't seem to let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

    Then why did you say the companies make the recommendation if you knew it was incorrect? Your credibility is wilting.

    How about, instead, you read how it's actually done instead of what some agenda-driven, anti-science, anti-vaccine, anti-pharmaceutical web site produced by a single person says? Don't you think that would be more honest?

    No, it wouldn't be hard. It would be impossible. Without FDA's advisory panels (independent scientists usually from academic institutions), then FDA approval (internal FDA staff with expertise in the area), and the CDC's recommendations (again, by independent scientists and CDC staff with expertise), no product would ever get to market and survive. And more often than not, those products don't make it to market because the bar is so high for both efficacy and safety.

    And you'd rather have rampant disease and death, just like in the early 1900s when the average life expectancy was in the 40s. Other than safe drinking water, no other public health tool has had as dramatic impact on public health than vaccines.

    You're a simpleton. Explain to us why the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic primarily killed young, healthy adults and not children or the elderly, both of which have poor ("weak") immune systems.

    What's remarkable is that you're so willing to voice an opinion about something which you have no clue.

    What country is that?

    I call it how I see it. Those who do not vaccinate their children take advantage of those of us who do.

    Please. Not vaccinating your children without medical cause is borderline child abuse.

    Yeah, I have nothing better to do. :rolleyes: I'm here because I despise the misinformation and lies that come from the antivaccine movement. They are responsible for the deaths of thousands of children.

    No, it's called the cold, hard facts.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #18
    Because the government fronts money for the R&D.

    This is because the vaccine market is only made possible through public funding or donations. Vaccines don't generate enough profit relative to their research cost for pharm companies to bother with.

    But we know that vaccines drastically cut healthcare expenses and greatly improve quality of life for everyone, so funding hasn't stopped.

    More to the point, it makes no logical sense for a company to waste billions in researching a cure and then not monetize it. It's far more logical for a company not to go down that research path to begin with since they already know it isn't profitable without assistance.
    What's worse, they don't stop and think for a moment to realize that almost all of their vaccines are either free or less than $20. If someone is making a fortune off of vaccines, it's not off the backs of patients.
     
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    I've been vaccinated for major things like mmr/hep, but I am not playing the flu shot game. I'll let the herd take care of that.
     
  20. lewis82 thread starter macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #20
    I've got the shot for the H1N1 flu, but it's the only flu shot I have got. I prefer to let my body take care of it, as I have had flu very rarely (twice in 19 years, not bad).
     
  21. .Andy, Jan 4, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2012

    .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #21
    - Last words, unknown Libertarian, 1918

    edit: yes there was no influenza vaccine in 1918
     
  22. Cave Man, Jan 4, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2012

    Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #22
    The problem is, not enough Americans get the annual influenza vaccine, thus herd immunity has little effect. The consequence is that 30,000 people, mostly the elderly, those with other conditions and very young children, die from it every year. Do the right thing and get immunized - if not for yourself, then for your community.
     
  23. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #23
    Bingo!!

    I deal with people who are at-risk, and some have no immune system at all.

    If I get sick, I sit down. I don't need the guilt.

    Oh, I passed on the first H1N1, after doing some reading on the subject. I understand that it is now a small part of the current flu vaccine.
     
  24. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #24
    Yes, it's in the current season's trivalent formulation:

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/flu_vaccine_updates.htm
     
  25. belltree macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #25
    A government should not be able to force another human to inject anything into their body. It is their body after all. If you want to be "protected" you can inoculate yourself and that's where it should end. No one has the right to tell another what they must do with their body.
     

Share This Page